Mr. Peña's 360-month sentence was an upward variance of 222 months, or 160%, from the high end of the total advisory guideline range of 123-138 months. This 30-year sentence–more than double the guideline range--was substantively unreasonable because it was based on mischaracterizations of Mr. Peña's conduct, history, and potential dangerousness. However, the Tenth Circuit, on appeal, basically abdicated its responsibility to review for reasonableness.

The issue presented in this Petition is whether the Tenth Circuit's toothless standard for reviewing the reasonableness of a upward variance is contrary to this Court's case law, United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (U.S. 2005), and its progeny, including Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013), and Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018), requiring that the appellate court review sentences for abuse of discretion.

Whether the Tenth Circuit's toothless standard for reviewing the reasonableness of an upward variance is contrary to this Court's case law, United States v. Booker, Peugh v. United States, and Hughes v. United States, requiring appellate courts to review sentences for abuse of discretion